I (now understand) that where I parked is on the border between Islington and City of London council (the Goswell Rd / Aldersgate Rd (EDIT: Aldersgate Street EC1) junction).

I could not find any street signage to identify the restricted parking times for the single yellow line.

I saw three wardens (a female and two males). They each wore the same traffic warden uniform which had a peaked black cap with a red band.

I asked all three officers collectively if it was okay to park my car on this single yellow line and pointed to the single yellow line and to my parked car.

The female traffic warden informed me from across the road that it was okay to park my car on a single yellow line. I was stood next to my car.

Around an hour later at 1858 I was issued a PCN by Islington Council.

It seems the female traffic warden mislead me and the two male officers didn't correct her.

As they are all official traffic wardens (whether from Islington or from City of London) it was reasonable and proper for me to believe them.

I couldn't identify the nearest street signage showing the controlled hours for the single yellow line.

Surely there should be street signage identifying controlled hours at the Goswell Rd / Aldersgate Rd junction as it seems it is a border between City of London and Islington and therefore is an entrance point to a zone controlled by Islington?

I'm trying to understand where you were although for now, I have a certain sympathy. The signs near Aldersgate and Old Street show the "Borough of Finsbury" on the Islington sign. If you are not familiar with the area... If you were near Aldersgate then one side of the road has parking permissable after 11.00a.m. on a Saturday and the other side doesn't show te the borough you are in.

It seems there is no agreement between the two authorities and a differential system in place.

My view on the two silent CEOs on that side of the street is that you asked the question and in the absence of a reply took it as read that it was permissible to park. Their clear duty was to ask you to move on which they did not. Entrapment---abuse of process--who knows?

If you approached on the Islington side then I'm puzzled.firstly, there is no way of knowing you are in Isligton.Secondly, if the sign on Google is correct, restrictions end at 1.30 on a Saturday but you got the ticket on Saturday evening.

I can confirm that particular area has changed it’s restriction/ times. My friend lives right there and recently got a pcn visitkmg his own mum on a Sunday I believe/ he’s parked there on and off for numerous yrs

As for the 3 wardens, unless u have their badge numbers it would be pointless mentioning it in any appeal. I’ve tried that and the council asked me to provide proof

......As for the 3 wardens, unless u have their badge numbers it would be pointless mentioning it in any appeal. I’ve tried that and the council asked me to provide proof

Not useless.Council will not accept (or at least unlikely to) even with badge numbers.But adjudicators will if they believe the appellant. Mentioning it now, at informal stage and keep repeating it helps cement that credibility.

......As for the 3 wardens, unless u have their badge numbers it would be pointless mentioning it in any appeal. I’ve tried that and the council asked me to provide proof

Not useless.Council will not accept (or at least unlikely to) even with badge numbers.But adjudicators will if they believe the appellant. Mentioning it now, at informal stage and keep repeating it helps cement that credibility.

Oh yes sorry I didn’t know that- I only got as far as the council on that part. Thanks

......As for the 3 wardens, unless u have their badge numbers it would be pointless mentioning it in any appeal. I’ve tried that and the council asked me to provide proof

Not useless.Council will not accept (or at least unlikely to) even with badge numbers.But adjudicators will if they believe the appellant. Mentioning it now, at informal stage and keep repeating it helps cement that credibility.

Oh yes sorry I didn’t know that- I only got as far as the council on that part. Thanks

Look at the file of case to assist arguments thread at the top of the forum. There are many cases in there where motorists have acted on assurances from a CEO

At the moment, I see a motorist who for whatever reason, missed the signage which may or may not have been in place.So took a common sense approach to whether or not it was lawful to park.They asked not one but a group of CEOs and was told you can park there.This to me is the primary point.

If errors in signage or confusion on location due to invisible border lines can be found they can be used.And should be.But IMO as an "after finding the PCN I did some research and .... "And can bolster the "I was confused so asked..."

I heard from the appellant when she attended on 6 January.It was she that park the car on the day restricted. She told me how she was attending first registration at Saturday language school for her five-year-old. This was at 9 am and she had not previously parked in the street.She gave evidence of consulting a patrolling officer who indicated that it was permissible at park on a Saturday.It is now apparent that it was not and the officer who ticketed the car correctly identified the Saturday single yellow line restrictions as being in force.The appellant wrote in and there was recorded delivery to what I believe was the correct address. I have seen the post office receipt for one reason or another the Council has been unable to trace or track.The appellant argued principally for an extension of the initial discount. The initial discount was not extended as Council staff appear to have been unaware of early representations. The appellant effectively apologised for not keeping a copy of these and she recognises she says she should have done. They were I believe written while she was at work at the major teaching hospital where she has a responsible managerial position.I was interested to hear from that that on a later Saturday she spoke again with the officer who she says misinformed her on the date with which we are here concerned. She says that he remembered and after some reluctance, effectively apologised. She does not criticise the officer of seeking to trick her. She was with a child and would have been respectful to him.She has struck me as being a wholly reliable witness in relation to the misinformation that she received. Although her appeal to me was presented essentially with the focus on the opportunity to pay at the lower rate I have decided that her case is strong enough for complete cancellation of the penalty charge. I have reached this conclusion on the basis of crucial misinformation from the patrolling officer. I recognise that it is very easy to blame a patrolling officer for misinformation and I am well aware in this Tribunal that there are motorists who claim this in a bogus way. As I have said I have accepted the appellant explanation and version of events and believe this appeal must thus properly recorded as allowed.

I know I march out of step at times and have a habit of challenging OPs' posts for reasons of clarity, but how in heaven's name could anyone hold a conversation with anyone on the other side of this busy road at 7pm on a Saturday given the inevitable traffic noise?

And as the OP asked 'all three officers collectively' and as we know that the female officer was on the other side of the road, then were all three on the other side?